I have noticed some models in the gallery that seem to be half weathered. What I mean is, for example, they have a tank which looks great. The color and all looks really good but then they only have weather it. They have a rusted muffler and dry brushed highlights on some of the edges but that is it.

I don't know. I feel either go all the way or don't. If you have a rusted muffler and scuff marks, then you also need dirt, grime and mud. The tracks need to be worn and the wheels dirty.

Some of the models I see look like the tank just rolled off the assembly line...with a rusted muffler and scuff marks!!

Am I missing something?

I would agree.... for my own kits I need to start doing dents etc. to feders and areas that get banged up.
I tend to use construction equipment in worksites and trucks I see on the road as examples of weathering as I'm not around miltary vehicles at all. Even in reference photos the weathering/damage isn't always that bad.....AND I think weathering is incremental, as you get good at one techinque, it gives you guts to try something new on the next kit.

Nate

usely in theater when tanks were hit and destroyed the muffler was all that was left intact. so most militarys have MRT's (Muffler Recovery Teams) whos job it was to scour the battlefiled and get the mufflers to return to the factory to be installed on new tanks. The theory was for every 3,482 mufflers that was recovered there was 1 extra tank rolling off the assembly line in time and metal saved.......................



(just to let anyone know in case anyone thinks i'm serious that I just thought I'd try and be funny for a change)

In my view it's ok. I've spent a few years on 1:1 scale tanks and I can remember that we had rusty exausts and tracks, scratches revealing bare metal or the underneath layer of paint, but most of the time they were perfectly clean. This can happen when weather is nice and the soil is not muddy or dusty...
Too often I've seen things really overdone, and that works look to me like "clown" vehicles. There'a a very interesting article in the features here on Armorama titled "Weathering heresies" with wich I agree at 200%! And too much dirt in my view, hides too much of my work and effort too...
Ciao

Yes! I agree that too much ALL the time is bad. But, I think all tanks need some. A tank in the desert is going to be dusty and have grease or scuff marks on it.

I think the only exception would be a tank in the city and even then it would probably still have dirt from how it got to the city as well as dust from the damaged buildings.

I said it before in a recent post but I will say it again. Just as Paul Owens points out in his excellent article too many armour modellers are weathering to make their model look like someone elses model instead of doing the research and modelling on the real thing. As a newbie to armour I have had to start at square one by researching my subject and I have found plenty of pics of clean tanks - in fact more of clean ones than of dirty and damaged ones. Is my experience especially unusual?

It is also as well to remember what we are looking at. A 1/35 scale model viewed at one yard will be the same as a full scale vehicle viewed from 35 yards. How many paintless bolt heads and minor scratches would you see? Just go out and walk round your car, motorbike or lawnmower. Then walk 35 yards away from it and see how different it looks.

I am always impressed when I see a model that looks like the real thing, and with armour I must say that most models look to me like models, - simply because of weathering that has been done to a formula instead of to a real subject.

I would suggest that a really well built model with no weathering looks much better than a model with excessive or poorly applied weathering.

Regards Dave

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I weather the hell out of tanks, bent andbeat-up fenders, the works, guess what wins the prises at model shows...the brand new just rolled out of the factory versions, so now I just diorama all my stuff and say the hell with the competition phase

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I weather the hell out of tanks, bent andbeat-up fenders, the works, guess what wins the prises at model shows...the brand new just rolled out of the factory versions, so now I just diorama all my stuff and say the hell with the competition phase

Kiwi, good point except that most models get close up inspection. Taking your view, why do we do shadows on figures or anything. From that perspective, you would barely see them. Why paint in the little insignias when you would not be able to see them in "real life" anyway?

As for the armor, I also have done much research on the subject and have yet to see a tank out in the field without dirt. Not talking about cacked on dirt but some. There is not a tank out there, in the field of battle, without SOME kind of dirt. If tanks only stayed on major, concrete highways it would be different but the first time a tank plows thru a field, it will have dirt. A tank in battle or one that has made it thru a few years of war will be pretty beat up.

Hi guys Interesting post, I like to weather my vehicles according to what location I wish it to represent. If you want to model an era in time I think you need must try to replicate the local conditions. re the distantance of viewing I think the expression modelling to scale comes in,this is usually evident when you paint with a brush then a air brush,hand brushing is never really in scale its far to thick, I think this rule applies with weathering, keep it in scale.my main observation with weathering is when a shermans tracks and wheels are covered in mud the rest of the tank is spotless, dont the crew climb in and out im sure they dont wipe their feet,there should be mud all around the hatches on the gun barrel and the mantlet. mind you when I have sprayed a nice coat of drab I hate having to messit up, but thats the price I have to pay for realism i guess. once again good post.all the best.

I've had exactly the opposite experience.

The OVERLY weathered , covered in paint scratches, glopped up with mud to the point that tracks would be thrown left and right, rusted out worse than a 70's riceburner in either Buffalo ( salt on roads) or Galveston/Key West (salt air) seems to be what draws the judges eyes.

Not just the eyes of judges in the more local shows where the guys who KNOW exactly what REAL armor looks like have probably entered the catagory and cannot judge , so the catagory is being judged by 3 plane guys, 2 car guys and some guy just in off the street, but at National Level shows ( including AMPS)

I have a real problem with the unwritten but obvious to the viewer AMPS expectation that every tank is a mudball.

I've had such frustrating experiencees the last 2 years that one of my entries this year was going to be a DML T-72 so completely covered in cellucaly mud that only the fuel drums, barrel end, and turret hatches stuck out titled " Mudball Mk 1A, Early " if I had been able to attend.

While I'm us here on the soapbox sihlouetted for all to snipe at..
The chipped paint effect that is all the rage these days seems VERY overdone to me as well. It's as bad as the soot black muzzles on modern armor and the bright red rusty mufflers.

Moderation people, it's all about moderation.
Either bang the heck out of the model and place it on a base showing this, or put it on a factory floor footprint. But either extreme looks 'fake'

Off my soapbox, rant mode off, I'll go back on my meds now...

Mike

All are interesting and valid points. At the end of the day.......... its up to each modeller what he/she wants to portray. Another thing ...... tanks get dirty so if you want to show it dirty or clean ......... its not wrong in either case.
As new skills are evolved ........ washes, drybrushing, scratching, streaking, pin washes , filters, etc. etc. most modellers wants to try and attempt them. The very skilled get it right, other get it right by luck....... most overdo it/underdo it! Why point the finger at them (me)?
I believe most modellers that post here, do look at references......... but getting a skill like paint chips perfect, is not easy. No matter how many references you have, it doesnt improve skill levels. Practice is needed and mistakes/overlooking/overdoing something is likely in the process.
Nobody sets out to overdo something........ that happens naturally. As long as they are happy with the result........ does it matter what anybody else thinks what it should be like?
taking paint chips again as an example............. it may be done to excess today and be unrealistic in some peoples opinion.......... but with the amount of people trying to achieve this effect....... in their eyes it is realistic, it is fun, it is to thier taste. Even if they havent pulled it off to perfection, a sense of achievemnet is felt. If everybody just had "really well built model with no weathering looking much better than a model with excessive or poorly applied weathering" this hobby would be stale, with nobody attempting new trends or developing further. Mig Hernenedez(?) took the modelling world by storm with each new model he displayed with his new weathering abilities. It would be sad if he had felt he should play safe. Maybe we all want to be Migs!

Well, this thread kinda got off topic. My whole point was that it bothers me when folks half weather something. Having a perfectly clean and polished tank with a rusty muffler or one little scratch.

Interesting topic though, esp about the re-used mufflers. I didn't know that.